It seems to be a style to place gcc_unreachable () after a
switch that handles all cases with every case returning.
Those are unreachable (well, yes!), so they will be elided
at CFG construction time and the middle-end will place
another __builtin_unreachable "after" them to note the
path doesn't lead to a return when the function is not declared
void.
So IMHO those explicit gcc_unreachable () serve no purpose,
if they could be replaced by a comment. But since all cases
cover switches not handling a case or not returning will
likely cause some diagnostic to be emitted which is better
than running into an ICE only at runtime.
2021-11-24 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
* tree.h (reverse_storage_order_for_component_p): Remove
spurious gcc_unreachable.
* cfganal.c (dfs_find_deadend): Likewise.
* fold-const-call.c (fold_const_logb): Likewise.
(fold_const_significand): Likewise.
* gimple-ssa-store-merging.c (lhs_valid_for_store_merging_p):
Likewise.
gcc/c-family/
* c-format.c (check_format_string): Remove spurious
gcc_unreachable.
*no_add_attrs = true;
return false;
}
-
- gcc_unreachable ();
}
/* Under the control of FLAGS, verify EXPR is a valid constant that
next = e ? e->dest : EDGE_SUCC (bb, 0)->dest;
}
}
-
- gcc_unreachable ();
}
}
return false;
}
- gcc_unreachable ();
}
/* Try to evaluate:
}
return false;
}
- gcc_unreachable ();
}
/* Try to evaluate:
default:
return false;
}
-
- gcc_unreachable ();
}
/* Return true if the tree RHS is a constant we want to consider
default:
return false;
}
-
- gcc_unreachable ();
}
/* Return true if T is a storage order barrier, i.e. a VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR